sured for his faults and misdemeanours, though not
discharged. Several cases have appeared in the law courts which have
decided that as long as a clerk behaves himself well, he has a good
right and title to continue in his office. Thus in _Rex_ v. _Erasmus
Warren_ (16 Geo. III) it was shown that the clerk became bankrupt, had
been guilty of many omissions in his office, was actually in prison at
the time of his amoval, and had appointed a deputy who was totally unfit
for the office. Against which it was insisted that the office of parish
clerk was a temporal office during life, that the parson could not
remove him, and that he had a right to appoint a deputy. One of the
judges stated that though the minister might have power of removing the
clerk on a good and sufficient cause, he could never be the sole judge
and remove him at pleasure, without being subject to the control of the
court. No misbehaviour of consequence was proved against him, and the
clerk was restored to his office.

In a more recent case the clerk had conducted himself on several
occasions by designedly irreverent and ridiculous behaviour in his
performance of his duty. He had appeared in church drunk, and had
indecently disturbed the congregation during the administration of Holy
Communion. He had been repeatedly reproved by the vicar, and finally
removed from his office. But the court decided that because the clerk
had not been summoned to answer for his conduct before his removal, a
mandamus should be issued for his restoration to his office[90].

[Footnote 90: _Ecclesiastical Law_, Sir R. Phillimore, p. 1907.]

No deputy clerk when removed can claim to be restored. It will be
gathered, therefore, that an incumbent is compelled by law to restore a
clerk removed by him without just cause, that the justice of the cause
is not determined in the law courts by an _ex-parte_ statement of the
incumbent, and that an accused clerk must have an opportunity of
answering the charges made against him. If a man performs the duties of
the office for one year he gains a settlement, and cannot afterwards be
removed without just cause.

An important Act was passed in 1844, to which I have already referred,
for the better regulating the office of lecturers and parish clerks.
Sections 5 and 6 of this Act bear directly on the method of removal of a
clerk who may be guilty of neglect or misbehaviour. I will endeavour to
divest the wording of the Act from legal technic